[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: SPF receivers are weak link

2005-08-27 00:49:16
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>

 Hector Santos wrote:
- I haven't read the latest specs, but it to promoted a
  neutral policy until they got their network in order.

Against some objections there's a "SHOULD -all" for some
months, IIRC before Wayne took over.  Doesn't change the
fact that some publishers can't do what you wish, a clean
"either PASS or FAIL" policy.

If that pisses you off (IMHO justifiable) treat policies
without a FAIL as too boring to waste your time => NONE

Since we use a CBV (Callback Verifier) as a final checker, for our system, we 
gave the sysop the option to decide:

Accept-SPF-Pass      True            ; if false, continue testing
Accept-SPF-SoftFail  False           ; if false, continue testing
Accept-SPF-Neutral   False           ; if false, continue testing

So it is not a big deal for us. We engineered as much as we can around the 

Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.

Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
please go to 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>